Category Archives: Health/Environment

The Rockefeller Files: Harper and the Canadian petro-state

Joyce Nelson
Rabble : June 16, 2014

By 2012, the U.S. was awash in light sweet crude from (fracked) shale oil deposits in Texas, North Dakota and elsewhere. With Midwest and Gulf Coast refineries configured to take heavy oil, that light crude has been looking for a refining home.

Just months after the 2012 Bilderberg meeting, media reports revealed that Royal Dutch Shell and BP (whose executives were at the secret conclave), trading firm Vitol and three other (unidentified) shale oil producers in the U.S., had applied to tanker their fracked light crude from the U.S. Gulf Coast up to Eastern Canada for refining — replacing conventional imported oil.

With those shipments now underway, the next stage in the plan is for the tankers to be refilled with piped tar sands dilbit (from Enbridge’s Line 9 and TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East pipe) for shipment to Gulf Coast refineries and to Europe.*

A March 2014 report, “TransCanada’s Energy East Pipeline: For Export, Not Domestic Gain,” released by the Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Equiterre and Environmental Defence states that nearly all of the 1.1 million barrels per day of tar sands crude to be carried by the pipeline would be exported unrefined.

The Council of Canadians also stated that the pipeline “would help spur an up to 40 per cent increase in tar sands production at a time when First Nations downstream are calling for an end to further expansion.”

The Globe and Mail has noted that tar sands producers “can recoup costs before paying money [royalties] to the government” — a major reason why tar sands expansion is ongoing. The tar sands industry is about 70 percent foreign-owned, with Rockefeller a controlling shareholder in several of the key companies.

The opening line of the environmentalists’ report reads: “TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline is not a made-in-Canada energy solution.” That seems to have prompted some revisionist spin.

Revisionist spin

On March 27, both The Globe and Mail and the Financial Post carried a lengthy Reuters article claiming that TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East pipeline project is the October 2012 brainchild of the New Brunswick government and Irving Oil — a “Plan B” in the face of U.S. opposition to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

The article states:

In October 2012, representatives from Irving Oil and New Brunswick’s government traveled to the western Canadian oil hub of Calgary to present their alternative: a west-east oil pipeline that would go all the way to the Atlantic. Irving Oil had asked for the meeting, according to a person who attended. Waiting from them in a conference room were Canadian provincial energy officials, executives from TransCanada, and representatives from industry heavyweights Canadian Natural Resources [Ltd.], Imperial Oil, Suncor, and Shell Canada. Representatives of all the companies involved declined to comment on the record about the meeting. Alberta’s oil minister, Ken Hughes, whispered into the ear of his counterpart from New Brunswick, Craig Leonard. Never before, Leonard remembers Hughes saying, had he seen so many of the major oil sands players together in a single room. And they were listening keenly.

Despite the breathless prose, it’s likely that 2012 Bilderberg participants (including Shell and BP executives) had tacitly approved the pipeline five months earlier.

Indeed, the May 2012 Bilderberg conclave seems to have been focussed on pipelines.

“Top headache”

Daniel Estulin, the foremost (non-member) expert on Bilderberg, reported that the “top headache” for the Bilderberg participants at that May 2012 meeting was Russian President Valdimir Putin because of his “opposition to war in Syria and Iran,” his “belligerence with respect to U.S. bases encircling Russia” and his plans for another natural gas pipeline to Europe that “could turn into a major victory for Russia” at the expense of competing plans backed by Bilderberg members.

Some 30 per cent of Western Europe’s natural gas has been coming from Russia, with most of it provided by a pipeline network centred in Ukraine.**

Estulin reported a Bilderberg “campaign to delegitimize Putin,” financed by “some very angry and powerful Anglo-American elites.” Present at that 2012 conclave was then-Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, now U.S. Secretary of State.

The 33-member Bilderberg Steering Committee includes Richard Perle, Project for the New American Century member and one of the key architects of the 2003 U.S. War on Iraq. In 2004, Perle and David Frum (co-authors of the book An End To Evil) were advocating for “regime change” in so many countries that they were said to have an “agenda for a Hundred Years’ War.”***

The February 2014 ouster of Ukraine’s democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych is now seen by many observers to have been a coup orchestrated by Anglo-American interests hoping for a new Cold War. Calling Ukraine “a CIA theme park,” John Pilger wrote for UK’s The Guardian that Ukraine “is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the U.S. and the EU. We in the West are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.”

That’s not how the crisis is being portrayed in much of Western corporate media, but as Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger has said, “It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true.” 

With no official parliamentary debate, Harper in May sent Canadian troops to Ukraine-related NATO exercises. The EU, worried about meeting long-term fuel needs, is now considering backing away from a proposed Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) which would curtail the import of tarsands crude. Simultaneously, TransCanada Corp. is “accelerating efforts” on its regulatory filing for the Energy East export pipeline extension.

Canadian petro-state

While Indiana’s Mitch Daniels was speaking at Bilderberg 2012, Indianapolis-based indystar.com reported that “the meeting this year will cover topics as diverse as energy, cyber security and the future of democracy.”

On that third topic, Harper was clear when he spoke last year at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — another Rockefeller founded/funded organization (for U.S. members only). On May 16, 2013, when asked by CFR’s Robert Rubin about risks to Canada, Harper mentioned “household debt,” “security risks” and then he said, “There’s always the risk of people picking the wrong government, but my primary job is to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

He got a laugh with that line, but less than a year later, the grossly misnamed “Fair Elections Act” has just been rammed through Parliament. Its terms will prevent any real investigation of future electoral “dirty tricks.”

(read the full article at Rabble)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Legalizing Acid, Pot and Shrooms – Your Constitutional Right To Think As You Wish Should Extend To Psychedelic States Of Mind

Dr. Peter Ferentzy
Huffington Post : June 19, 2014

Thomas Roberts recently wrote on a topic that has long interested me: is the banning of mind-altering, psychedelics substances akin to repression of free thought and expression? Roberts thinks so, as the title of his work makes clear: “You Have a Constitutional Right to Psychedelics.”

Consider, for example, how the repression of many religious experiences is anathema to a culture such as ours. No one may tell you how to pray, or what to feel when you pray.

And yet, when adherents of certain faiths engage in what for them are sacred practices – Rastafarians smoking ganja or Natives ingesting peyote – we are confronted with a legal and moral dilemma: should drugs that are generally forbidden be permitted in such cases?

The easiest and wisest answer is that the drugs should be legal – problem solved. But issues still arise in our soon-to-be-post-prohibitionist climate. We are not there yet, so we have to haggle with morality watchdogs. It isn’t hard to do. Those of us who have studied up on drug use can attest to how research has shown – again and again – that ritualized and ceremonial drug use (often with religious currents) is much less likely to be troublesome. Hence Jews, at least those who are more traditional, do a good job of keeping alcoholism at bay. The same goes for Natives with peyote, whose experiences with that substance differ markedly from their struggles with alcohol, the white man’s poison.

Rather than belabor the anthropology of drug use, however, I would tackle another point – the ramifications of which are sure to emerge over the coming years as the war on drugs dies a slow and ignoble death.

When, during the Enlightenment, westerners decided that priests and other religious figures had no business telling people how to pray, which deities to pray to, or even to pray at all, the issue was much larger than religion. Freedom of speech, thought and inquiry were also on the rise. This continent (North America) and above all one nation (The United States) were at the forefront of these advances. Born in the Enlightenment, America is rooted in it perhaps like no other country.

No one had a right to tell people what to believe, what to think or how to think. Of course, laws still had to be obeyed, and we settled on a reasonable approach to most (if not all) issues: as long as you obey the laws in place, you are free to challenge them, voice your disagreement, and work for their repeal.

So even in a climate that bans drugs, people have had the right to question prohibition.

But we are starting to experience another challenge, so look for it in the news, on the streets, and in college dorms: forbidding the ingestion of certain drugs – such as LSD, marijuana, and magic mushrooms – amounts to forbidding the thought processes these drugs initiate. Anyone who has used psychedelics can attest to the effects they can have on one’s thinking.

Whether or not you approve of these – albeit temporary – fluctuations of consciousness is not at issue. The issue is more straightforward: to ban these experiences is – plain and simple – repression of thought.

Consider for example the argument put forth by John Stewart Mill, possibly the most serious and sophisticated advocate of freedom that ever lived: the only way to test the value of an opinion, or of a behavior, is to let people experiment with it – not just debate it, but do it. See? Repression is self-defeating because someone must always be the arbiter. Mill believed that no human being, or group of human beings, should ever have such power.

He was right.

(read the full article at Huffington Post)

The 10 Scariest Chemicals Used In Hydraulic Fracking

Michael B Kelley
Business Insider : March 16, 2012

ProPublica investigations found fracking to be the common thread in more than 1,000 cases of water contamination across seven states, including dozens of cases of well failures in which the concrete or steel meant to protect aquifers cracked under high pressure.

Surface and groundwater supplies are also at risk since an estimated 10 to 90 percent of fracking fluid is returned to the surface during well completion and subsequent production, according to a 2011 public health report on natural gas operations.

Natural gas is mostly methane, and the potent greenhouse gas— it traps 21 times more heat than CO2— has been leaking from wells at twice the rate of fracking industry claims, according to a 2012 study published in the journal Nature.

A 2011 congressional report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracking, states that the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the U.S. injected 10.2 million gallons of more than 650 products that contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.

Methanol

Methanol appeared most often in hydraulic fracturing products (in terms of the number of compounds containing the chemical).

Found in antifreeze, paint solvent and vehicle fuel.

Vapors can cause eye irritation, headache and fatigue, and in high enough doses can be fatal. Swallowing may cause eye damage or death.

Sources: ProPublicaU.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Hydraulic Fracturing Report

BTEX compounds

The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – are listed as hazardous air pollutants in the Clean Air Act and contaminents in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Benzene, commonly found in gasoline, is also a known human carcinogen. Long time exposure can cause cancer, bone marrow failure, or leukemia. Short term effects include dizziness, weakness, headache, breathlessness, chest constriction, nausea, and vomiting.

Toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes have harmful effects on the central nervous system. 

The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical between 2005 and 2009.

Sources: ProPublica, U.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Hydraulic Fracturing Report

Diesel fuel

A carcinogen listed as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and a contaminant in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In its 2004 report, the EPA stated that the “use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat” to underground sources of drinking water.

Hydraulic fracturing companies injected more than 30 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states.

Diesel fuel contains toxic constituents, including BTEX compounds.

Contact with skin may cause redness, itching, burning, severe skin damage and cancer.

(Kerosene is also used. Found in jet and rocket fuel, the vapor can cause irritation of the eyes and nose, and ingestion can be fatal. Chronic exposure may cause drowsiness, convulsions, coma or death.)

Sources: ProPublica, U.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Hydraulic Fracturing Report

Lead

A carcinogen found in paint, building construction materials and roofing joints.

It is listed as a hazardous air pollutant in the Clean Air Act and a contaminant in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Lead is particularly harmful to children’s neurological development. It also can cause reproductive problems, high blood pressure, and nerve disorders in adults. 

One of the hydraulic fracturing companies used 780 gallons of a product containing lead between 2005 and 2009.

Source: U.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Hydraulic Fracturing Report

Hydrogen fluoride

Found in rust removers, aluminum brighteners and heavy duty cleaners.

Listed as a hazardous air pollutant in the Clean Air Act.

Fumes are highly irritating, corrosive, and poisonous. Repeated ingestion over time can lead to hardening of the bones, and contact with liquid can produce severe burns. A lethal dose is 1.5 grams.

Absorption of substantial amounts of hydrogen fluoride by any route may be fatal. 

One of the hydraulic fracturing companies used 67,222 gallons of two products containing hydrogen fluoride in 2008 and 2009. 

Sources: ProPublicaU.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Hydraulic Fracturing Report

Naphthalene

A carcinogen found in mothballs.

Listed as a hazardous air pollutant in the Clean Air Act.

Inhalation can cause respiratory tract irritation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fever or death.

Sources: ProPublicaU.S. Energy and Commerce Committee Hydraulic Fracturing Report

Sulfuric acid

A carcinogen found in lead-acid batteries for cars.

Corrosive to all body tissues. Inhalation may cause serious lung damage and contact with eyes can lead to a total loss of vision. The lethal dose is between 1 teaspoonful and one-half ounce.

Source: ProPublica

Crystalline silica

A carcinogen found in concrete, brick mortar and construction sands.

Dust is harmful if inhaled repeatedly over a long period of time and can lead to silicosis or cancer.

Source: ProPublica

Formaldehyde

A carcinogen found in embalming agents for human or animal remains.

Ingestion of even one ounce of liquid can cause death. Exposure over a long period of time can cause lung damage and reproductive problems in women.

Source: ProPublica

Unknown chemicals

“Many of the hydraulic fracturing fluids contain chemical components that are listed as ‘proprietary’ or ‘trade secret.’ The companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to identify these ‘proprietary’ chemicals, suggesting that the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.”

Source: U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Hydraulic Fracturing Report

(read the full article at Business Insider)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Medicinal Magic Mushrooms can treat anxiety, depression, addiction, and can even regrow brain cells

Psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in magic mushrooms, is proving a prodigious treatment for anxiety, depression, addiction, and one study even found it may lead to neurogenesis, or the regrowth of brain cells. So when will doctors finally be able to write prescriptions for psilocybin? In this opinion piece Dr. David E. Nichols, psychedelic research expert and co-founder of The Heffter Research Institute, explains what steps it will take to get medicinal psilocybin legalized.

When Will Medicinal ‘Magic Mushrooms’ Be Legalized?

Dr. David E. Nichols
reset.me : June 17, 2014

Many people have now seen media stories about the renewed research interest in psychedelics as medicines, often called a “renaissance” in psychedelic research, over perhaps the past five years or so. Although many psychedelic substances have been used safely as medicines in indigenous cultures for millennia, we are now seeing renewed interest in these substances in Western cultures. As a co-founder of the Heffter Research Institute I have watched with an increasing sense of both amazement and gratitude — that we have been able to accomplish so much in such a relatively short time. We are on the path to make psilocybin into a prescription medicine! The Heffter Institute has been a key driver of this “renaissance,” utilizing most of the donations we receive directly to support clinical research.

Heffter initially provided major funding for a small study of psilocybin treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients, at the University of Arizona. That study provided mixed but encouraging results that have yet to be pursued due to funding limitations.

Our first truly successful study was treatment of 12 terminal cancer patients who suffered from anxiety and depression. They were treated with a program of therapy that included psilocybin, the active component in so-called magic mushrooms. Participants showed a significant reduction in anxiety at one and three months after treatment, with no significant adverse events. That study, led by Dr. Charles Grob at the UCLA Harbor Medical Center, was published in 2011 in Archives of General Psychiatry, widely recognized as perhaps the top psychiatry journal in the world.

Subsequently, two additional studies were begun using psilocybin to treat anxiety and depression in cancer patients, one at Johns Hopkins University led by Dr. Roland Griffiths, and the other at New York University (NYU) directed by Dr. Stephen Ross. The patients in both studies have almost completed their treatments, then the studies will start the follow-up and data analysis stage. Preliminary analysis points again to significantly decreased anxiety and depression.

In addition, the Heffter Institute recently sponsored a study of psilocybin-assisted therapy in a pilot study of 10 volunteers with alcohol dependence. The principal investigator for this study was Dr. Michael Bogenschutz, at the University of New Mexico (UNM). Drinking decreased significantly beginning in the second month of treatment, after psilocybin was administered, and improvement remained significant for an additional six months of follow-up. There were strong correlations between the intensity of the experience in the first psilocybin session and clinical improvement following the session. Based on the positive findings from this pilot study, we are now implementing a larger randomized trial at UNM and NYU.

We also recently supported a pilot study by Dr. Matthew Johnson at Johns Hopkins, administering psilocybin within a 15-week smoking cessation treatment. Participants were 15 healthy smokers with a mean of six previous lifetime quit attempts who were smoking an average of 19 cigarettes per day for 31 years. Measures of smoking behavior showed that 12 of the 15 participants (80%) were no longer smoking at six-month follow-up. This smoking cessation rate substantially exceeds rates commonly reported for other types of therapies (typically less than 35%). These findings suggest that psilocybin may be a useful and potentially efficacious adjunct to current smoking cessation treatment approaches, and warrant a follow-up clinical trial. Results also illustrate a framework for research on the efficacy and mechanisms of psychedelic-facilitated addiction treatment.

(read the full article at reset.me)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

First Nations Going to Court United Against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline

First Nations Going to Court United Against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project

Today, we unequivocally reject the Harper Government’s decision to approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway tanker and pipelines project and First Nations will immediately go to court to vigorously pursue all lawful means to stop the Enbridge project.

We have governed our lands, in accordance to our Indigenous laws, since time immemorial. Our inherent Title and Rights and our legal authority over our respective territories have never been surrendered.

Our inherent rights are human rights constitutionally enshrined, judicially recognized and embodied in international legal instruments including the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This project, and the federal process to approve it, violated our rights and our laws. We are uniting to defend our lands and waters of our respective territories. Our rights and laws compel us to act.

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway tanker and pipeline project exposes all communities from Alberta to the Pacific Coast to the undeniable risk of pipeline and supertanker oil spills. First Nations and the majority of British Columbians believe this project poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, the health, the safety and livelihoods of all peoples throughout this province.

We will defend our territories whatever the costs may be.

Council of the Haida Nation

Gitanmaax Band Council

Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs

Gitgaat

Gitxaala

Gitxsan (Delgamuukw)

Haisla

Heiltsuk

Kitasoo Xai’xais

Lax kw’alaams

Metlakatla

Nadleh Whut’en

Nak’azdli

Neskonlith Indian Band

Office of the Wet’suwet’en

Saikuz First Nation

Takla Lake

Tlazten

Tsetsaut / Skii km Lax Ha

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

Wet’suwet’en First Nation

Williams Lake Indian Band

Xatsull

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

Coastal First Nations

St’at’imc Chiefs Council

Tahltan Central Council

Yinka Dene Alliance

BC Assembly of First Nations

First Nations Summit

Union of BC Indian Chiefs

(Source: The Nelson Daily)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

How the EPA Faked the Entire Science of Sewage Sludge Safety: A Whistleblower’s Story

Truth-out : June 15, 2014

US EPA’s 503 sludge rule (1993) allows treated sewage sludges, aka biosolids, to be land-applied to farms, forests, parks, school playgrounds, home gardens and other private and public lands. According to a recent EPA survey, biosolids contain a wide range of mutagenic and neurotoxic chemicals, which are present at a million-fold higher concentrations (ppm versus ppt) compared with their levels in polluted air and water (1). Biosolids contain all of the lipophilic (fat-soluble) chemical wastes that once polluted our rivers and lakes, but which now settle out at sewage treatment plants and become concentrated in sewage sludges. Most biosolids contain ppm concentrations of heavy metals, including chromium, lead, and mercury. They contain similarly high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and semi-volatiles, such as bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, Benzo(a)pyrene), and polybrominated diphenyl ether congeners (PBDE flame retardants). Most biosolids also contain pathogenic agents and ppm levels of many common drugs, including ciprofloxacin (Cipro), carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro), and fluoxetine (Prozac).

While working at EPA Dr David Lewis published evidence that teenager Shayne Conner (of New Hampshire) died and other neighbors were harmed from living near land applied with sewage sludge (Lewis et al 2002). He furthermore became involved after dairy herds of two Georgia farms (McElmurray and Boyce) were poisoned after grazing on sludged land. He testified in lawsuits following each incident, against his employer (EPA), which is where many of the following depositions were obtained. The following article is an excerpt from Chapter 4 (Sludge Magic) of his new book Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits. The lawsuits referred to are Lewis v. EPA 1999; Lewis v. EPA 2003; and USA, ex rel. Lewis, McElmurray and Boyce v. Walker et al. 2009. The depositions below piece together an unprecedented and coordinated multi-agency scientific scheme involving EPA, USDA, local and city municipalities, Synagro Technologies (a waste management company), various universities, and the National Academies of Science. The effort was intended to misleadingly present sewage sludge as scientifically safe, to hide the evidence that it was not, to deliberately misreport the contents of municipal sludges, and smear David Lewis with a scientific misconduct charge after he blew the whistle.

(read the excerpt from Chapter 4 (Sludge Magic) of Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits at Truth-out)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

New Study Links GMO To Leukemia; Bt is toxic

AlternativeFreePress.com

A new study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases entitled Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice. indicates that genetically modified crops with Bacillus Thuringensis (Bt), may contribute to blood abnormalities such as leukemia. Many GM crops contain Bt.

The Brazilian study sought to establish the purported human and environmental safety of GM crops, in particular they looked at the impact that the Bt toxin has on species which it is not intended to target.

The study concludes:

Results showed that the Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A can cause some hematological risks to vertebrates,increasing their toxic effects with long-term exposure. Taking into account the increased risk of human and animal exposures to significant levels of these toxins, especially through diet, our results suggest that further studies are required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms, especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.

This study makes a strong case that GMOs have not proven to be safe, as these scientists believe “further studies are required … before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.”

Interesting findings include:

– Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly red blood cells, this results in significant damage.
– Bt toxins suppress bone marrow proliferation resulting in abnormal lymphocyte patterns which can be consistent with leukemia.
– Bt toxin can cause blood changes indicating damage to bone marrow.
– Genetically Modified Bt spore-crystals induce hematotoxicity, cause in vitro hemolysis in cell lines of rat, mouse, sheep, horse, and human erythrocytes & the plasma membrane of susceptible cells may be the primary target for the toxins.
– Bt toxins can produce adverse effects when suspended in distilled water, this contradicts past claims of not requiring alkalinization via insect physiology to become activated.
– Bt toxin can cause blood changes indicating damage to bone marrow.
– Even just 27 mg/kg Cry1Ab can induce hypochromic anemia in mice.
– Bt toxins accumulate in fatty tissue and persist in the environment as their toxic impact increases after 72 hours of exposure.

Source: Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
New Study Links GMO To Leukemia; Bt is toxic by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Study says alcohol can lead to psychosis, but not cannabis

AlternativeFreePress.com

The University of Calgary has published a study entitled “Impact of substance use on conversion to psychosis in youth at clinical high risk of psychosis” in the journal Schizophrenia Research. The 4 year study looks at substance use of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco in an attempt to determine each substance’s association with the development of psychosis.

Researchers determined that cannabis did not increase the likelihood of psychosis. On the other hand, the study suggests that alcohol use could increase the likelihood of psychosis.

The Abstract reads: “Results revealed that low use of alcohol, but neither cannabis use nor tobacco use at baseline, contributed to the prediction of psychosis in the CHR sample.”

Source: Schizophrenia Research

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
Study says alcohol can lead to psychosis, but not cannabis by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Monarch butterflies threatened by GM crops, study says

Evelyn Boychuk
The Globe & Mail: June 4, 2014

A sweeping Canadian-led study of environmental influences on monarch butterflies has thrown into sharp focus what appears to be the most crucial factor affecting the migrating insect’s survival: loss of milkweed in the U.S. Midwest due to a change in farming practices.

Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed plants every spring and summer as successive generations migrate northward from Mexico as far as Canada. At the end of the breeding season a single “super generation” heads back south, travelling thousands of kilometres so that the cycle can begin anew.

In recent years the overwintering population in Mexico has been on a sharp downward trend, with lowest numbers ever recorded last December.

The new study, published today in the Journal of Animal Ecology, draws on 30 years of earlier work including information about milkweed prevalence, logging in Mexico, climate change effects and monarch migration timing. Researchers used the wealth of data to assemble a computer model that allowed them to simulate the butterflies` yearly cycle.

“The model replicates, in our opinion, what’s happening on an annual basis,” said Tyler Flockhart, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Guelph and lead author of the study.

“We provide the first direct evidence that the population decline is being driven by milkweed loss.”

In the model, milkweed loss is estimated separately for different regions of Eastern North America, allowing researchers to “determine not only what is causing the decline of the monarch, but also where,” said Ryan Norris, a professor of biology at Guelph.

The evidence points to the U.S. corn belt, where increased cultivation of genetically modified corn and soybean crops comes with a devastating side effect for milkweed.

When GM crops are planted, fields are sprayed with herbicides to wipe out any wild plants that don`t share the crops’ genetically engineered protection. In the past, herbicides would typically be applied early in the growing season, when milkweed seeds are still underground. With GM crops, the spraying happens later, and any milkweed growing adjacent to the crops is hit hard.

(Read the full article at Globe & Mail)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

I’m a Farm Wife. And I Hate GMOs.

Sweet Sustainability: May 31, 2014

I’m a farm wife – of a grain farmer. A GMO grain farmer. There’s been a lot of heated debates about GMOs lately, as there should be, and it seems like I hear the same things repeated over and over in our agricultural community. If you’re against GMOs, you’re against farmers. If you’re against GMOs, you must be some yuppie woman from the city who drops her children off at their charter school, hits up her organic market, and goes back to her 7th floor flat to practice her internet activism against GMOs. If you are that mom, no offense, and the movement can certainly use you, provided that you really do your research and don’t quote things from NaturalNews without first making sure they are entirely unbiased and true. 🙂

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who loves agriculture more than I do. I grew up in a farming family; my family raised produce, garden plants, meat animals and horses. Granddaddy also tanned hides to sell, traded ginseng, and had a ham store that really was internationally-renowned. I still remember the smell of the curing days in the fall – spicy peppers and sweet brown sugar. Yum. It’s making me hungry. But I digress. I loved agriculture so much that I majored in it in undergrad at Virginia Tech. B.S. in Animal and Poultry Sciences. I even went on to get my M.S. in Agriculture and Extension Education. After college, I was lucky enough to meet a grain farmer who was crazy handsome and sweet and funny and all of those things that scream husband material. And he somehow found me cute and fun enough to marry. My idea of a great morning is a hot cup of locally-roasted coffee accompanying me out into the garden until my boys wake up and coming back in the house sweaty, accomplished, and with really dirty jean knees. Here I stand actually, 5 months pregnant, sweaty, with dirty jean knees, writing this post as I make dinner while the boys are out checking soils at the different farm fields. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

As I mentioned above, I married a grain farmer. When I met him, my only thought was “well that’s neat”, because my family had never been involved in cereal grain production. We’re near the East Coast and grains aren’t as huge here as they are in say, the Midwest. Now that I know what they are, I remember seeing sprayers in fields and thinking “Wow, it must cost a lot of money to irrigate fields with all that water!” I kind of wish I still thought it was water. My family had never used any chemicals other than lime in our fields, so chemical agriculture was a whole new ballgame to me. I literally had no clue. Fast forward seven years, and here I am writing this post. Why now? Well, a few reasons. The debate heating up obviously makes it a good time. But I also feel like there are some of us who haven’t had a voice in that debate, or at least been outspoken enough. And by “we”, I mean farmers who don’t actually *like* GMOs. Now my qualifications as a farmer may be iffy – I don’t actually help my husband in the field, and I’m not employed by his farm. I’m a mere spectator to that part. My “farming” is in my chickens down the hill, my berry patches, and my garden. That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. He grows what the consumer demands – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn. Because we’re NOT in the “grain belt”, grain elevators here are hard to find that take non-GMO grains separately. In short, there’s no market for non-GMO unless we find a small supplier that’s willing to take a chance on it (which is what happened this year and last, thankfully). If we grow non-GMO and nobody buys it, that doesn’t help you, or us.

So to the meat of it – why would I hate GMOs? Well, I’m going to outline several reasons. Sure, part of what you hear from me will be what you’ve heard from other GMO activists. Safety concerns, concerns about evil corporations, etc. I do not disagree with those points that many activists make. And let me say here that many times, when I’ve heard folks insult “anti-GMO activists” and I chime in, I get the “Well yeah but you’re not one of the crazy activists, so you don’t count in [whatever insult I just made]” Aren’t I? I readily admit I am one of the most outspoken people you will find on the topic. I don’t hesitate to write legislators, sign petitions, or call Monsanto on their BS on their Facebook page. I AM one of those crazy activists. And that’s fine with me. You don’t change the world by behaving. But my reasons for hating GMOs go way beyond many of the normal things you usually hear from The Activists. I truly feel that these companies and these seeds are threatening to utterly DESTROY our industry.

#1. Proof of Safety? Doubtful. On either side of the debate, you’ve heard this one: “GMOs have a long, proven track record of safety. Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have all proven that they are completely safe.” Ehhhhh not so much. Once you really start looking into these “studies”, you realize that ALL – let me repeat that – ALL of them are industry-sponsored. What does that mean? Well, to put it in basics, Monsanto has conducted a study to say that Monsanto’s products are completely safe. See the problem here? Those safety studies determine the future of their products and their company. If you were Monsanto, would you not ensure that if you’re going to conduct a study, it comes out in your favor? There have been NO independent studies done on GMOs that have been approved, because the seeds are patented and the GMO manufacturers will not release the patents for independent testing. Furthermore, the FDA/USDA/ANY other regulatory agency does NOT test, nor sponsor testing of GMOs. The only requirements for these federal agencies to say these products are safe are 30-day trials, conducted by the companies themselves. Look at the incidence of degenerative diseases in our society. 100 years ago, we worried about communicable diseases – diseases passed from one person to the other. Today, we worry much more about diseases that have nothing to do with “catching” anything from the folks around us. Lots of people are chalking it up to genetics but as a species evolves, does it not improve genetically? Do I think GMOs are the cause of cancers, Alzheimer’s, and other degenerative diseases? No, probably not on their own. Do I think what we are putting on and in our bodies is the cause? AB-SO-FREAKING-LUTELY. Perhaps our genes make us more predisposed to developing these conditions, but the CAUSE is not our genes; it is our food, and the chemicals that we surround ourselves with. Being anti-GMO is NOT being anti-science, or anti-technology. It is being anti-industry-bullshit. I’m of the opinion that until we really get some good, long-term information about how we digest the changed genetic structures of these GMOs and how they can affect our bodies, they should not be in virtually every food we eat.

#2. Chemicals. This part of GMO grain production actually bothers me more than the genetic splicing and insertion itself. We KNOW the chemicals applied to GMO grain crops are harmful. And though the companies who manufacture these chemicals (ironically, the same companies who manufacture our GMO food seeds (?!?!)) would like to tell us that they don’t stick around long enough to affect our bodies when we eat GMO foods, this is patently false, as proven by LOTS of recent studies – most notably those showing the levels of glyphosate (Roundup) showing up in American breastmilk (Google it – it’s real, it’s reliable, and the government is reviewing Roundup safety as a result). And yes, I absolutely realize that chemical application is not limited to GMO grain production. Non-GMO grains, as well as organic (sorry, folks, it’s true) grains may also get treated with dangerous chemicals. However, many GMO grains have been specifically developed to withstand an incredible amount of pesticide application. Trust me, while you may find non-GMO and organic products that possibly haven’t been sprayed, you can bet your bottom dollar that GMO products are LOADED with pesticides. Another part of GMO production and its relationship with chemicals has to deal with no-till agriculture – meaning that when a crop is planted, the soil is not tilled. There are several benefits to no-till that involve topsoil conservation and maintaining the health of our waterways. It’s also quicker and cheaper. No-till is a great thing, save for one thing – chemical application. In traditional agriculture, tilling kills the weeds growing on top of a field that is to be planted. In no-till, another means of killing those weeds must be employed; and to date, the only viable option is chemical application. No-till and GMO production don’t always have to go hand in hand, but in reality, they often do. After the initial spray, growing plants can then be sprayed again and again with Roundup to ensure no weeds grow while the crop is young and getting established.

#3. GMOs are eroding our creativity and connection with agriculture. Find an old time farmer and he will probably tell you about cover crops, companion planting, and all of his tricks to keeping weeds and bugs out of his crop fields. As we embrace GMO technology without a second thought, we are killing our creativity and our knowledge in the process. Who needs to talk to an old timer now? We have sprays for that. I realize that some folks view this as a win – “Our problems are solved!” – but what happens when the chemical solution to the problem is no longer a viable one and we no longer know any other way? A great example of this is Roundup resistance. Many weeds are now becoming resistant to Roundup and are either requiring even more enormous amounts of Roundup application, or a different poison altogether (which is why Dow is currently in the approval process of 2,4-D resistant gene technology – in case you aren’t aware, 2, 4-D is one of the components of Agent Orange).

#4. Betting the farm – literally – on new technology that’s in the process of being rejected. THIS one is the most important and the most concerning point to me. The agricultural community has been so quick to embrace this seed technology – 88% of all field corn is GMO and 94% of all soybeans are GMO – without thought for what may happen if the technology fails to be accepted. Acceptance by American consumers is definitely important – and we know that is failing. 95% of Americans want GMOs labeled. Many are even calling for a ban. Several states have pending legislation that would limit GMO production. Even MORE important and MORE concerning is global rejection of GMOs. Peru has already banned them altogether. 60-something other countries around the world have some kind of restriction on their import. The U.S. and Canada are the last holdouts for trying to avoid labeling GMOs (presumably because the companies who produce them have infiltrated our government to the highest levels – Hillary Clinton, Michael Taylor of the FDA, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the list goes on foreverrrrr). The world is rejecting GMOs. If we can’t export our products, we are done for. Yet, agricultural producers are still screaming to defend these products. I can only surmise that a) fear of no longer knowing how to produce without them, and b) being unwilling to find a way to add value to their products are what’s driving that defense. MOST concerning, however, is that if GMOs fail – if GMOs are rejected – if GMOs are proven to NOT be a good technology – we have already begun the process of contaminating all of our seed for these crops. Even the certification for non-GMO is “containing X% or less of GMO material” – because the contamination is so rampant that purity is almost non-existent at this point. If GMO fails, every crop that we have started GMO production for – corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and even GRASS (YES, GRASS) – will fail. That’s an awfully big risk for us to be embracing. Farming has always come with risks. Calculated risks. GMO is a bad bet at this point.

(read the full article at Sweet Sustainability)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-